145 réponses à ce sujet

[FutharkTomahawk]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You're welcome to use the characters the way BioWare intended. Just don't make the rest of us do it.

And this by and large sums things up nicely.  *tips hat* 

[Orian Tabris]

BioWare wouldn't give characters a role that doesn't fit their character. I don't understand why you would WANT to alter their characters. It can't be to make the game easy, because after Lothering, almost every fight in the game is easy on Nightmare. Even playing from start to finish on Nightmare isn't impossible. Sten as an archer? Why don't you make Oghren a tank? Because if you want to alter a character's combat role, you may as well forget the whole concept of character development. The way I see it, characters designed to take one combat role, make no sense whatsoever, in a different role.

In Final Fantasy 13 it was fine that the characters could eventually change their roles, because no matter which they used, they all felt like they could fill any. But with Dragon Age, characters are defined purely by their personality and combat style, not by flexibility. Isabela, for example, loves getting up close and dirty. If she were to stand back and shoot at enemies, she wouldn't feel the intense excitement of combat, unless it came her way - and she actively looks for excitement.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Once they're in the party, they're player characters. They're mine. I can do with them as I please. Anything that draws a mechanical distinction between the player character I create and the other characters is the party is something I'd rather not see.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Filament wrote...

They're yours to the arbitrary extent that bioware chooses. You can't control them in dialog, though some systems do allow for that too. Storm of Zehir comes to mind.

And since that line is arbitrary, I suggest that the player should be able to move it.

Incidentally, BG and BG2 both allowed the player to use any party member in conversations, as well.  That's the standard by which I've judged the dialogue systems of every BioWare game since.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Shale's existence does not disagree with Xewaka's premise. Alistair and Leliana and Sten and Zevran and Oghren and Morrigan support Xewaka's premise. Where companions were relevantly similar to the PC, the equipment rules that governed them were the same as those that governed the PC.

Arbitrary distinction is arbitrary.  I know you would rather be given the ability to just create all of your own characters and enjoy ignoring creator's intent all the live long day. I would rather simply give the player the option to create their own characters, rather than turn the pre-existing ones into blank slates.

That went away. That Shale used different rules is not evidence that everyone should. Not all grey things are elephants.

I never said that everyone should. Xewaka said that everyone shouldn't. I just said that it doesn't always work, and provided relevant examples of when I believed that it didn't.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 09 octobre 2012 - 09:36 .

[MagmaSaiyan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Once they're in the party, they're player characters. They're mine. I can do with them as I please. Anything that draws a mechanical distinction between the player character I create and the other characters is the party is something I'd rather not see.

well then im going to use a word that gets thrown around so much it makes me puke, "it breaks immersion"  but i will say i didnt mind the customization in Awakening cause i at least could respec, but rogues shouldnt be able to use anything other than a bow and daggers and maybe a combo of sword and dagger

Modifié par MagmaSaiyan, 09 octobre 2012 - 09:36 .

[DarkKnightHolmes]

MagmaSaiyan wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Once they're in the party, they're player characters. They're mine. I can do with them as I please. Anything that draws a mechanical distinction between the player character I create and the other characters is the party is something I'd rather not see.

well then im going to use a word that gets thrown around so much it makes me puke, "it breaks immersion" 

That's their problem. For me, a customizable character has never breaken immersion.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I never said that everyone should. Xewaka said that everyone shouldn't. I just said that it doesn't always work, and provided relevant examples of when I believed that it didn't.

He said everyone shouldn't, not anyone shouldn't.

DAO used the everyone shouldn't approach.  Some companions followed different rules, bot not all of them.  Anyone of them could break the rules if they had a good reason, but not everyone.

DA2, though, had everyone use different rules.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MagmaSaiyan wrote...

well then im going to use a word that gets thrown around so much it makes me puke, "it breaks immersion" 

Then don't do it.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

He said everyone shouldn't, not anyone shouldn't.

He never allowed for any exceptions to his rule. That's what I disagree with. Reread his post.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In his post, he asked for maximum customisation. Shale's maximum customisation is the fitting of crystals and the selection of talents. Those are the rules that govern Shale, and since we have no other golems with which to compare Shale, there's no inconsistency there.

[Xewaka]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
He said everyone shouldn't, not anyone shouldn't.

He never allowed for any exceptions to his rule. That's what I disagree with. Reread his post.

Shale is her own tradeoff. You get an specific class, exclusive to her (Golem), with its own skill paths. In exchange of being able to progress in a class forbidden to your character, she has a more limited inventory - reflecting that class. Again, mechanical characterization through additions/tradeoffs, not limitations.

Modifié par Xewaka, 09 octobre 2012 - 09:50 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In his post, he asked for maximum customisation. Shale's maximum customisation is the fitting of crystals and the selection of talents. Those are the rules that govern Shale, and since we have no other golems with which to compare Shale, there's no inconsistency there.

Arbitary distinction is, once again, arbitrary. What's to stop Shale from wielding a greatsword or shooting a bow? Why can't Shale wear armor or pick up a dagger? Why can't the player customize to that extent?

Why are you ok with Shale? I thought you were the one who didn't like arbitrary distinctions like this.

[hoorayforicecream]

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
He said everyone shouldn't, not anyone shouldn't.

He never allowed for any exceptions to his rule. That's what I disagree with. Reread his post.

Shale is her own tradeoff. You get an specific class, exclusive to her (Golem), with its own skill paths. In exchange of being able to progress in a class forbidden to your character, she has a more limited inventory - reflecting that class. Again, mechanical characterization through additions/tradeoffs, not limitations.

My point was that companions are their own tradeoffs. They have their own specific classes, exclusive to them. In exchange for being able to progress in a class forbidden to your character, they gain a more limited inventory (and skill tree) - reflecting that class.

[Xewaka]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
My point was that companions are their own tradeoffs. They have their own specific classes, exclusive to them. In exchange for being able to progress in a class forbidden to your character, they gain a more limited inventory (and skill tree) - reflecting that class.

Then why is he classified as a rogue in game? Why doesn't he have his own seven skill trees, but rather five Rogue Trees and a single specialization tree? The balance of probability -mainly, his five rogue skill tress and his rogue class- points towards him being a rogue with arbitrary, mechanically noncompensated deficits.

[hoorayforicecream]

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
My point was that companions are their own tradeoffs. They have their own specific classes, exclusive to them. In exchange for being able to progress in a class forbidden to your character, they gain a more limited inventory (and skill tree) - reflecting that class.

Then why is he classified as a rogue in game? Why doesn't he have his own seven skill trees, but rather five Rogue Trees and a single specialization tree? The balance of probability -mainly, his five rogue skill tress and his rogue class- points towards him being a rogue with arbitrary, mechanically noncompensated deficits.

So if the game said Varric is a "Dwarven Bard" class that happened to share some skill trees with the rogue class, rather than a "rogue", you'd accept it?

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 09 octobre 2012 - 09:56 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Arbitary distinction is, once again, arbitrary. What's to stop Shale from wielding a greatsword or shooting a bow? Why can't Shale wear armor or pick up a dagger? Why can't the player customize to that extent?

I actually think Shale should be allowed to wield weapons, though there's an obvious fitting problem with armour.

Why are you ok with Shale? I thought you were the one who didn't like arbitrary distinctions like this.

If the PC were a golem, the PC would resumably follow similar rules.  If I had reason to believe the PC would not follow similar rules, that would bother me.

If the human companions in DA2 have their own classes, those classes should be selectable by the PC.  Let me worry about explaining how it makes sense for Hawke to be a Pirate.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 09 octobre 2012 - 09:58 .

[Blastback]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
My point was that companions are their own tradeoffs. They have their own specific classes, exclusive to them. In exchange for being able to progress in a class forbidden to your character, they gain a more limited inventory (and skill tree) - reflecting that class.

Then why is he classified as a rogue in game? Why doesn't he have his own seven skill trees, but rather five Rogue Trees and a single specialization tree? The balance of probability -mainly, his five rogue skill tress and his rogue class- points towards him being a rogue with arbitrary, mechanically noncompensated deficits.

So if the game said Varric is a "Dwarven Bard" class that happened to share some skill trees with the rogue class, rather than a "rogue", you'd accept it?

For myself, I'd be happier if Varric was able to use any weapons avaible to the Rogue class.

One thing they could do is allow each character to equip two sets of weapons like in Origins, one ranged, one melee.  In cases of characters like Varric, he can only use Bianca as his ranged weapon, but can equip any melee weapons avaible to the rogue class.

But then, I think there were to few weapon and combat styles avaible. 

[Xewaka]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
My point was that companions are their own tradeoffs. They have their own specific classes, exclusive to them. In exchange for being able to progress in a class forbidden to your character, they gain a more limited inventory (and skill tree) - reflecting that class.

Then why is he classified as a rogue in game? Why doesn't he have his own seven skill trees, but rather five Rogue Trees and a single specialization tree? The balance of probability -mainly, his five rogue skill tress and his rogue class- points towards him being a rogue with arbitrary, mechanically noncompensated deficits.

So if the game said Varric is a "Dwarven Bard" class that happened to share some skill trees with the rogue class, rather than a "rogue", you'd accept it?

For the sake of the discussion, I'll assume you refer to a proper class, rather than the Rogue specialization. The question then becomes: It is a legitimate class? Sharing just the weapon trees (the way Warrior and Rogue shared daggers and bow trees) would be stretching it, but acceptable, assuming the class has enough weight to be an entity of its own. It has to be a legitimate class (i.e. all four non-weapon trees exclusive plus exclusive specialization, assuming a basic six trees plus specializations distribution like DA2 classes).
Then the question comes why can't the main character be one, but that's a discussion for another topic.

Modifié par Xewaka, 09 octobre 2012 - 10:04 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

So if the game said Varric is a "Dwarven Bard" class that happened to share some skill trees with the rogue class, rather than a "rogue", you'd accept it?

I would, but then the Bard class should be available for Hawke (unless we have race-specific classes, which would need to be supported by the lore).

[TEWR]

I'd like to propose a system for how to equip the party with certain weapons.

Rather then keeping the system as it is -- attributes and skills -- I propose we have attributes, class skills, and weapon talents. To elaborate, we'll use Fenris as an example.

So Fenris has just leveled up. You pump some points into some stats, then move on to the weapon talents menu. You are then given the option to choose from Two-Handed, Shield&Sword, Archery, or Dual Wielding. The trees already exist, so it'd just be a matter of allowing Fenris to be able to choose from them.

He'd be able to equip any weapon he wanted, barring Staves.

Now we move onto the skills menu. They are all the Warrior-centric ones, plus his unique character specialization which combines Spirit Warrior/Templar/Berserker.

So you could choose from Vanguard, Warmonger, etc.

This would be done differently for Mages, mind you. It would require the Arcane Warrior specialization for PC Mages for them to be able to access the weapons, but for companion Mages I'm not sure how to best do it without making every companion's unique character specialization combine Arcane Warrior. 

Not sure how much this'd cost in terms of resources though. Probably more then I think. Still, it might be something to keep in mind.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I would, but then the Bard class should be available for Hawke (unless we have race-specific classes, which would need to be supported by the lore).

We have that to a degree with the Keeper tree, where it's called an Elven art and very, very rarely is it taught to those outside of the clans.

EDIT: BSN ate my edit.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 09 octobre 2012 - 10:22 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

This would be done differently for Mages, mind you. It would require the Arcane Warrior specialization for PC Mages for them to be able to access the weapons, but for companion Mages I'm not sure how to best do it without making every companion's unique character specialization combine Arcane Warrior. 

You could just not limit them to that one unique specialisation.

This mod does exactly that with DA2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I would, but then the Bard class should be available for Hawke (unless we have race-specific classes, which would need to be supported by the lore).

We have that to a degree with the Keeper tree, where it's called an Elven art and very, very rarely is it taught to those outside of the clans.

We do have that with the Keeper.  I'd like to have seen a greater difference between the Keeper and Mage classes, but that's the sort of race-specific class limitation that is well-supported by the lore.

But, again, why not let the player decide whether the class selection makes sense?  If DAO had had a Morrigan-specific Witch class, what would be the harm is letting a PC from the Mage origin use it?  Does it require some mental gymnastics to justify?  Sure.  But if the player doesn't find that troubling, let him do it.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 09 octobre 2012 - 10:20 .

[TEWR]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You could just not limit them to that one unique specialisation.

Hmm... Arcane Warrior plus the unique one would be a good way to do it.